Missile units in melee

[Ryze]

Hi everyone. First of all, I want to say I saw this game today and I think the whole concept is awesome.

Having played 2 short games, I wanted to sugest something that is in Age of Empires 3: missile units that are in melee should have to fight with a sidearm instead of shooting their opponents at point blank range.

I'm not saying that they should have a minimum range (I saw that was in-game and later removed)... What I'm saying is, if an infantryman/light cavalryman (with low armor, imagine) runs towards an archer, the archer should do what they do best and keep shooting them in the face UNTIL the guy reaches him. At that point, it is irrealistic that the archer can keep shooting him while getting hacked to pieces. He should have to pull out a knife/sword/whatever and fight for his life. Else, the infantryman's/cavalryman's natural advantage, a close-quarter fight, is denied...

My view is that this idea would improve gameplay: the archer is a support unit and, therefore, he should have be supported. If he isn't, he should die most of the time he is forced to fight in melee. This would encourage "combined arms" tactics and, therefore, in my opinion, a better gameplay.

What do you guys think?

P.S.: It would also help with archer variety. You could have a very good archer that sucks in melee and, on the other hand, a mediocre archer that fights rather well, or something in between...

[LordGood]

I think this is a planned feature already, even melee units such as the hastatus might have a pillum or two to toss before lines meet.

[Lion.Kanzen]

The team member say yes but. Is not in planned features.

[sanderd17]

Hi everyone. First of all, I want to say I saw this game today and I think the whole concept is awesome.

Having played 2 short games, I wanted to sugest something that is in Age of Empires 3: missile units that are in melee should have to fight with a sidearm instead of shooting their opponents at point blank range.

I'm not saying that they should have a minimum range (I saw that was in-game and later removed)...

We did not want to remove the minimum range. It's just because it caused problems. When a melee unit got into the minimum range of an archer, the archer ran some meters from the melee unit, then turned around, prepared to shoot, and by that time, the melee unit already caught up with him, so the archer had to run again. What we really need is doing better distance calculations that are based on the speed of both units. And better decisions about when to chase and when not depending on the speed difference.

What I'm saying is, if an infantryman/light cavalryman (with low armor, imagine) runs towards an archer, the archer should do what they do best and keep shooting them in the face UNTIL the guy reaches him. At that point, it is irrealistic that the archer can keep shooting him while getting hacked to pieces. He should have to pull out a knife/sword/whatever and fight for his life. Else, the infantryman's/cavalryman's natural advantage, a close-quarter fight, is denied...

We do want mixed units (ranged and melee), but more like the roman kind: throw one pilum, and attack by sword afterwards. So it would only count for some units, while a big part would stay purely melee or purely ranged.

My view is that this idea would improve gameplay: the archer is a support unit and, therefore, he should have be supported. If he isn't, he should die most of the time he is forced to fight in melee. This would encourage "combined arms" tactics and, therefore, in my opinion, a better gameplay.

What do you guys think?

I there is a chance it's going to cause too much micro. If archers will certainly loose when fighting in melee, they should run for themselves. The player shouldn't continuously command them to run.

[Ryze]

We did not want to remove the minimum range. It's just because it caused problems. When a melee unit got into the minimum range of an archer, the archer ran some meters from the melee unit, then turned around, prepared to shoot, and by that time, the melee unit already caught up with him, so the archer had to run again. What we really need is doing better distance calculations that are based on the speed of both units. And better decisions about when to chase and when not depending on the speed difference.

We do want mixed units (ranged and melee), but more like the roman kind: throw one pilum, and attack by sword afterwards. So it would only count for some units, while a big part would stay purely melee or purely ranged.

I there is a chance it's going to cause too much micro. If archers will certainly loose when fighting in melee, they should run for themselves. The player shouldn't continuously command them to run.

Perhaps I emphasized the supposed weakness of archers in melee a bit too much... On the other hand, it is like the minimum range issue: if the someone gets in melee range and is faster than the archer, then the only logical decision is to stand ground and deal the most damage possible before diying.

However, the issue arises when a very good melee unit vulnerable to missiles (e.g. light infantry) gets close enough: if the archer can keep shooting, the light infantryman's advantage is nullified, making an artificial tactic like "light infantry should avoid archers at all costs" imperative. If that happened, when would you use light infantry???

I agree that melee should be a last resort for archers and that they should run away whenever possible. However, if they cannot flee they should not have an unfair advantage. Besides, they might have hurt the enemy enough so that they win the melee (which is a quite possible scenario).

This is a minor issue, of course, but it relates to 'army composition' and 'how strong should archers be', so I think it is an interesting issue (if minor) issue.

[sanderd17]

This isn't a minor issue, it's a major usability issue that requires a lot of thinking.

[Ryze]

This isn't a minor issue, it's a major usability issue that requires a lot of thinking.

Wow. I'm glad you think that way. Most people get annoyed when I begin this sort of discussion, so I usually try not to make too much noise xD

That being said, what solution do you think would be best?

I like AoE3's, but balancing would be rather complicated, depending on what people think about how well should archers be able to fare in close-quarters combat and how competent the AI would be in supporting its own archers...

[sanderd17]

That being said, what solution do you think would be best?.

Working on some other things too, I don't have too much spare time to think about this. I think it requires someone to implement multiple attacks, and after that, we can start fixing the behaviour. It's a bit difficult to have this discussion in a void for me. I'd need to be able to test things before I decide.

[Mythos_Ruler]

Some ranged units could have defensive attacks (like Immortals or other ranged champion and hero units), but I think citizen-soldier ranged units should have a minimum range and run away. The reason we removed this for now is that it'll take some amount of thinking and coding to get the attacks upon a fleeing unit to follow through and register a hit. Right now, a pursuing melee unit will initiate its attack upon the fleeing unit, but the fleeing unit will flee from its pursuer's melee attack range, disrupting the attack before it can register. Rinse. Repeat until you have units chasing each other all over the map. What is needed, like I said, is for the pursuing melee unit to have its melee attack "follow through" and register a hit upon the fleeing skirmisher or archer even if they move out of range of the melee attack. An even more elegant solution would be to allow units to attack while moving, so that a pursuing melee cavalryman can swing his sword and attack the fleeing unit while chasing him.

[Ryze]

Some ranged units could have defensive attacks (like Immortals or other ranged champion and hero units), but I think citizen-soldier ranged units should have a minimum range and run away. The reason we removed this for now is that it'll take some amount of thinking and coding to get the attacks upon a fleeing unit to follow through and register a hit. Right now, a pursuing melee unit will initiate its attack upon the fleeing unit, but the fleeing unit will flee from its pursuer's melee attack range, disrupting the attack before it can register. Rinse. Repeat until you have units chasing each other all over the map. What is needed, like I said, is for the pursuing melee unit to have its melee attack "follow through" and register a hit upon the fleeing skirmisher or archer even if they move out of range of the melee attack. An even more elegant solution would be to allow units to attack while moving, so that a pursuing melee cavalryman can swing his sword and attack the fleeing unit while chasing him.

I hope you manage to solve those issues...

Is it possible to access the files in question? I have some (very basic) knowledge of programming and learning how to improve this game would be an interesting challenge (whenever I have some free-time).

[sanderd17]

Is it possible to access the files in question? I have some (very basic) knowledge of programming and learning how to improve this game would be an interesting challenge (whenever I have some free-time).

http://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/GettingStarted

[Ryze]

http://trac.wildfire.../GettingStarted

Thanks

[Lion.Kanzen]

Abilities system reduces create hybrid units.

[Ryze]

Abilities system reduces create hybrid units.

As long as the problem/issue is solved, I'm fine with it...